RUNNERS CLAN FOUNDATION,DOMBIVALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the IT Act.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12(1)(ac) of the IT Act on 31.08.2023. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirement of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued by LD CIT(E) through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification. The desired information was furnished by the assessee. However, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee trust and rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not provided proper opportunity to the assessee, & therefore the order is not justified. It was submitted that the assessee trust submitted desired information before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune & if he was not satisfied with the information submitted by the asseseee he ought to have provided at-least one more opportunity to the assessee trust before jumping to any adverse conclusion. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to provide one opportunity to submit the documents in support of application for registration.

Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue placed heavy reliance on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly only two opportunities were given to the assessee and on both the occasions, the assessee made compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. It is sole contention of the assessee that if Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was not satisfied with the compliance made by the assessee trust he should have had provided at-least one opportunity to the assessee to explain his case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice without going into the merits of the case, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with direction to decide the application for registration afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the